Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 21STCV40768, Date: 2023-11-16 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV40768 Hearing Date: November 16, 2023 Dept: M
CASE NO.: 21STCV40768
MOTION: Motion
to Compel Initial Discovery Responses
HEARING DATE: 11/16/2023
Legal
Standard
If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to
serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses and for a monetary sanction. (CCP § 2030.290(b).) The
statute contains no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses have
been served. All that need be shown in the moving papers is that a set of
interrogatories was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to
respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served. (Leach
v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal. App. 3d 902, 905-906.)
Where
there has been no timely response to a CCP section 2031.010 inspection demand,
the demanding party must seek an order compelling a response. (CCP § 2031.300.)
Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work
product. Thus, unless the party to whom the demand was directed obtains relief
from waiver, he or she cannot raise objections to the documents demanded. There
is no deadline for a motion to compel responses. Likewise, for failure to
respond, the moving party need not attempt to resolve the matter outside court
before filing the motion. Where the motion seeks only a response to the
inspection demand, no showing of "good cause" is required.
Analysis
Defendant
Jerry Haviv MD served Plaintiff Alice Dawson with Special Interrogatories, Set
One, on May 22, 2023. (Villebro Decl., Ex. A.) Responses to the special interrogatories
were due on or before June 26, 2023. Defendant unilaterally offered Plaintiff
an extension until September 21, 2023, to serve responses. (Id. Ex. B.) No
response was provided. (Id. ¶ 4.)
Defendant also served Plaintiff with a
Demand for Production of Documents and Other Tangible Things, Set One, on May
22, 2023. (Villebro Decl., Ex. A.) Defendant unilaterally offered Plaintiff an
extension until September 21, 2023 to serve responses. (Id. Ex. B.) Likewise,
no response was provided. (¶ 4.)
Accordingly, the motions to compel are
GRANTED. Responses are ordered within 10
days.
Monetary sanctions are mandatory,
unless the imposition of sanctions would be unjust or the party subject to the
sanctions acted with substantial justification. (CCP §§ 2030.290(c).) Plaintiff
failed to oppose and therefore failed to justify their non-response to the at
issue discovery. Defendant requests sanctions in the amount of $720.00 against
plaintiff, individually, for each motion. Counsel for defendant bills $220.00
per hour. Counsel claims one hour for preparation of each Motion and
anticipates preparing the replies will take one hour each and attending the
hearing on these Motions will take one hour. Further, the filing fee for these
Motions was $60.00.
Considering the substantial
similarities between this motion and a previous motion to compel, along with the
lack of oppositions, the Court finds the sanctions slightly excessive. The Court will reduce the sanctions award
accordingly. Defendant’s request for sanctions is therefore GRANTED in the
amount of $500.00 per motion, inclusive of costs, against Plaintiff. Sanctions in
the amount of $1,000 are to be paid to Defendant’s counsel within 30 days.